Western Australia at the Crossroads

Western Australia is, at present, one of the more strategically significant jurisdictions on earth. That is not a boast. It is a description of circumstances that carry obligations.

Its mineral exports underpin federal revenue and international trade relationships of the first order. Its proximity to the Indo-Pacific places it inside a security calculus that extends well beyond its borders. Its iron ore, lithium and rare earth deposits have, in recent years, ceased to be merely commercial commodities. They have become instruments of strategic policy, referenced in alliance communiques and ministerial briefings as components of a shared defence architecture.

Walker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

All of this is true. And most of it receives sustained public attention.

What receives considerably less attention is a parallel reality. In the same jurisdiction that supplies the material foundation of a regional security framework, nurses are struggling to secure rental accommodation. Young families are postponing home ownership. Essential workers are moving further from employment centres in search of housing they can afford. Temporary accommodation has expanded. Vacancy rates have tightened to levels that, in any honest assessment, constitute a structural failure.

These two realities coexist. They are rarely examined together. This analysis attempts that examination.

The Architecture of Alliance

Australia’s deepening integration with the United States under AUKUS is now the central organising principle of national defence policy. It is presented, with some justification, as a long-term investment in deterrence, interoperability and strategic credibility in a region that is measurably less stable than it was a decade ago.

Western Australia sits at the material centre of that arrangement. Its resources are not peripheral to the alliance logic. They are part of it. Decisions concerning extraction, environmental approvals and infrastructure now carry strategic undertones that would have seemed improbable twenty years ago. The language of national interest has become more expansive. Supply chain resilience, critical minerals security and deterrence stability are invoked with increasing regularity in forums that previously confined themselves to commercial policy.

None of this is, in itself, illegitimate. States must consider risk. Governments must weigh the consequences of strategic dependency in a contested region. The argument that Australia should be indifferent to its position in a rapidly recalibrating Indo-Pacific is not a serious argument.

The question is a narrower one. When strategic vocabulary begins to permeate economic and environmental decision-making, a hierarchy of priorities emerges. Security relevance becomes a defining metric of value. And the question worth asking is whether that hierarchy begins, over time, to crowd out other obligations.

Two Logics, One Jurisdiction

Alongside strategic alignment runs a longer economic current. For several decades, Australian fiscal policy has emphasised restraint, efficiency and market allocation. Budget surpluses are treated as signals of competence and evidence of sound management. Public expenditure is scrutinised through the lens of long-term sustainability. Private sector delivery is routinely preferred to direct state provision.

Western Australia has benefited materially from this model. Royalties from resource exports have produced periods of significant surplus. Infrastructure projects have been funded. Credit ratings have been maintained. The fiscal position of the state, measured in conventional terms, has at times been among the stronger in the country.

Yet housing stress has intensified sharply. Rental vacancy rates have tightened to levels that place extraordinary pressure on households across the income spectrum, not merely at the margins. Entry into home ownership has become more remote for a significant proportion of younger citizens. The stock of public housing has failed to keep pace with demand for the better part of a generation.

The 2023-24 state budget recorded a surplus of $4.5 billion, the final audited outcome published in the Annual Report on State Finances. In the same period, the public housing waitlist represented approximately 35,000 individuals, each application typically accounting for more than one person in housing need. That figure has continued to rise in every subsequent reporting period. The coexistence of a $4.5 billion surplus with 35,000 individuals on the public housing waitlist is not a matter of contested interpretation. It is a matter of documented fiscal choice.

This is not the consequence of a single decision. It reflects planning settings, construction capacity, investor incentives, migration flows and fiscal philosophy operating in combination over a long period. But it also reflects the philosophical weight placed upon surplus preservation and market-led supply, relative to direct structural intervention.

When surplus is elevated as a primary indicator of prudent governance, large-scale public housing programmes may appear fiscally uncomfortable before the merits of any specific proposal are even examined. When housing is treated predominantly as a market good, price escalation becomes an accepted by-product of demand rather than a signal requiring structural response.

Two logics therefore operate simultaneously within the same jurisdiction. One elevates Western Australia’s importance in a global security framework. The other constrains the scale of permissible domestic intervention in the housing system.

Each logic, considered in isolation, can be defended. Considered together, they create a tension that the public debate has not yet adequately confronted.

Sovereignty Has Two Dimensions

Sovereignty is most commonly discussed in external terms. It refers to defence capacity, treaty formation, border integrity and diplomatic autonomy. Within that frame, deeper alliance integration can plausibly be presented as an enhancement of sovereign capability through collective security arrangements. The argument has force.

There is a second dimension that receives considerably less attention. Internal sovereignty, by which I mean the state’s capacity to guarantee material security for the citizens subject to its authority, concerns housing stability, healthcare access, employment continuity and the social cohesion that makes democratic institutions function with something approaching legitimacy. It concerns whether a family can plan across a five-year horizon without chronic material insecurity.

A state may command significant external posture while its internal conditions deteriorate. These two things are not automatically linked. External engagement and domestic neglect can coexist, and frequently do, for extended periods before the relationship between them becomes visible.

Western Australia’s current housing conditions represent a test of that balance. A jurisdiction that contributes significantly to national revenue and to the strategic ambitions of a major alliance should not experience persistent difficulty in ensuring basic shelter for the workforce upon which its economic contribution depends.

Housing is not, at its core, a welfare issue, though it has welfare dimensions. It is the foundation of social order. When housing becomes chronically precarious, community confidence erodes in ways that are difficult to reverse. Economic productivity suffers. Public trust in institutions weakens. And the political environment that strategic policy depends upon for sustained legitimacy becomes less stable.

If strategic alignment is justified as investment in the national future, that future must include tangible security within the borders it is constituted to protect.

The Psychology of Strategic Framing

Public discourse shapes the perception of priority, and it does so in ways that are rarely transparent. When geopolitical rivalry is consistently emphasised, citizens become more tolerant of trade-offs that might otherwise attract sustained scrutiny. Defence announcements command attention. International summits project a kind of stature that domestic policy rarely matches. External threat frames concentrate political energy and draw it away from structural questions that are harder to dramatise.

The strategic rivalry narrative involving China has become a defining feature of contemporary Australian political debate. There are legitimate areas of concern within that narrative. Supply chain dependency does present risk. Technological competition is real. Military modernisation in the region is observable and documented. These are not confected anxieties.

Yet when external risk dominates public conversation, domestic strain may appear secondary by comparison, not because it is less consequential but because it is less emotionally vivid. Housing queues do not generate the headlines that submarine procurement does. Rental insecurity does not carry the symbolic weight of alliance communiques.

No coordinated manipulation need be assumed to explain this pattern. Institutional incentives alone are sufficient. Political leaders derive a form of authority from international engagement that domestic policy rarely provides. Bureaucracies orient their priorities toward areas aligned with national strategic direction. Media attention follows the emotional temperature of events. The result can be a subtle displacement: the electorate is invited to think geopolitically while living locally.

A mature democracy must recognise that displacement for what it is. It does not require cynicism about strategic policy to observe that the distribution of public attention has consequences for which domestic conditions receive sustained political pressure and which do not.

Housing as a Structural Signal

Housing, examined carefully, provides a measurable indicator of whether policy priorities are aligned with lived reality. It reflects land release decisions, planning efficiency, capital allocation, labour availability and the underlying fiscal philosophy of the government responsible for it.

When vacancy rates fall to extreme levels, the signal is structural, not cyclical. When essential workers struggle to secure accommodation within reasonable distance of employment centres, the signal is systemic. When younger citizens postpone home ownership despite sustained macroeconomic strength, the signal concerns distribution, and asks who benefits from that strength and over what timeframe.

Western Australia’s mineral wealth enhances its geopolitical relevance. It also generates revenue streams capable, in principle, of financing large-scale structural reform. A surplus of $4.5 billion recorded while approximately 35,000 individuals waited for public housing is not evidence of incapacity. It is evidence of prioritisation. If those revenues are not deployed to stabilise housing supply over a sustained period, the appropriate question becomes one of choice rather than capacity.

Recalibration does not require abandonment of alliance commitments, nor does it require repudiation of fiscal discipline as a governing principle. It requires recognition that strategic contribution, to be durable, must be matched by the social reinforcement that holds a contributing community together.

Public housing construction, targeted land release, planning reform and the restructuring of investor incentives are instruments within reach of any government with the will to use them. The debate is not primarily about feasibility. It is about priority.

The Risk of Gradual Erosion

Democratic fatigue rarely arrives suddenly. It accumulates, unevenly, across many small disappointments. Citizens who perceive, over time, that macroeconomic strength does not translate into personal security begin to doubt whether institutions remain oriented toward them. That doubt does not always manifest in protest or crisis. It settles into a quiet, persistent withdrawal of confidence that is much harder to reverse than the conditions that produced it.

When strategic announcements proliferate while rental stress persists, a disconnect emerges. It may not generate confrontation. It may not even generate articulate dissent. But it erodes the reservoir of civic trust upon which effective government depends, particularly in a federation where the relationship between strategic ambition and local experience is often difficult for citizens to trace.

Many advanced democracies confront a version of this tension between global integration and local fragility. The lesson from comparable jurisdictions is cautionary. When housing insecurity becomes entrenched, political polarisation intensifies and the space available for considered policy reform contracts. A jurisdiction that retains fiscal capacity has an opportunity to act before that contraction deepens. That opportunity is not permanent.

Rebalancing Without Retreat

It is worth distinguishing, clearly, between recalibration and retreat. The case made here is not a case against AUKUS, nor against the strategic logic that underlies Australia’s alliance commitments. Those commitments reflect a considered assessment of regional risk and they carry their own legitimacy. The argument is a different one entirely: that a state which contributes to an alliance must also invest in the domestic stability that gives its contribution meaning and durability.

Rebalancing means ensuring that external posture does not eclipse internal obligation. It means acknowledging that sovereignty has two dimensions and that both require sustained investment. A surplus is not an end in itself. Its legitimacy rests on what it makes possible. If surplus preservation coexists with entrenched housing scarcity, its moral authority as a policy objective is weakened in ways that eventually become politically significant.

The appropriate question is not whether Western Australia should contribute to national defence architecture. It plainly should, and does. The question is whether that contribution is accompanied by commensurate investment in the domestic stability that gives the contribution its meaning and its durability.

Security Begins with Shelter

The debate about alliance and alignment is often conducted at considerable remove from ordinary life. It concerns deterrence theory, interoperability standards and the regional balance of forces. These are legitimate considerations and they deserve serious analysis.

But the foundation of any durable state is more prosaic than any of that. It is shelter. It is the capacity of a working household to secure stable accommodation without chronic insecurity. It is the ability of a community to plan across a generation rather than a lease cycle.

A state that cannot ensure reasonable access to housing for its workforce risks weakening the social cohesion that defence policy ultimately exists to protect. Strategic partnership may secure borders. It does not secure rental contracts. It does not reduce the number of individuals on the public housing waitlist. It does not put a teacher within affordable distance of the school where they work.

Western Australia possesses the resources, the fiscal capacity and the institutional maturity to address both dimensions of sovereignty simultaneously. The task is not ideological rupture. It is disciplined rebalancing, pursued with the same seriousness that strategic alignment currently commands.

External commitment and internal reinforcement are not competing obligations. They are complementary ones. But complementarity does not occur automatically. It requires conscious prioritisation by governments willing to hold both dimensions in view at the same time.

If housing insecurity persists while strategic rhetoric intensifies, citizens will draw their own conclusions about whose security is actually being managed. If, however, mineral wealth and alliance relevance are accompanied by tangible domestic investment, confidence in institutions strengthens in precisely the way that long-term strategic credibility depends upon.

Sovereignty is measured less by communiques than by the conditions inside the homes of the people the state is constituted to serve. Western Australia now has the capacity, and the occasion, to demonstrate that strategic significance and social stability are not competing ambitions. They are, properly understood, the same obligation expressed at different scales.

Walker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.